U.S. military, Okinawa hold 1st safety forum after sex assault cases
In closed-door talks at the U.S. Marine Corps' Camp Foster, the U.S. military outlined its existing preventive measures, while both sides agreed to work toward holding a regular joint community patrol, like the one conducted in April in the city of Okinawa, and expanding it to other parts of the prefecture, according to a local government official.
The launch of the new dialogue venue, named "Okinawa Community Partnership Forum," was announced in July last year by U.S. Forces Japan, after revelations of alleged sexual assault cases in June sparked renewed safety concerns among locals.
Okinawa Prefecture hosts the bulk of U.S. military installations in Japan, and anti-base sentiment runs deep due to aircraft noise, pollution and crimes committed by American service members.
The participants of the first meeting of the new forum included representatives from the Okinawa prefectural government, the city of Okinawa, local police, the U.S. forces on Okinawa and the U.S. Consulate General Naha. Officials from Japan's foreign and defense ministries also took part.
The meeting is expected to be held about once a year going forward.
Specific assault cases were not discussed in the meeting, according to the local government official.
"Establishing an avenue for each organization to propose measures to prevent incidents involving U.S. military is of great significance," Masahito Tamari, director general of the Okinawa governor's office, told reporters after the meeting.
The U.S. military said in its statement that the talks "highlighted the importance of ongoing communication and collaboration between USFJ and the Okinawa community."
"Both sides reaffirmed their dedication to fostering a positive and mutually beneficial relationship based on trust and respect," it added.
© KYODO
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
9 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Modi and Trump once called each other good friends. Now the US-India relationship is getting bumpy
NEW DELHI (AP) -- The men shared bear hugs, showered praise on each other and made appearances side by side at stadium rallies -- a big optics boost for two populist leaders with ideological similarities. Each called the other a good friend. In India, the bonhomie between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump was seen as a relationship like no other. That is, until a series of events gummed up the works. From Trump's tariffs and India's purchase of oil from Russia to a U.S. tilt towards Pakistan, friction between New Delhi and Washington has been hard to miss. And much of it has happened far from the corridors of power and, unsurprisingly, through Trump's posts on social media. It has left policy experts wondering whether the camaraderie the two leaders shared may be a thing of the past, even though Trump has stopped short of referring to Modi directly on social media. The dip in rapport, some say, puts a strategic bilateral relationship built over decades at risk. "This is a testing time for the relationship," said Ashok Malik, a former policy adviser in India's Foreign Ministry. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Simmering tensions over trade and tariffs The latest hiccup between India and the U.S. emerged last week when Trump announced that he was slapping 25% tariffs on India as well as an unspecified penalty because of India's purchasing of Russian oil. For New Delhi, such a move from its largest trading partner is expected to be felt across sectors, but it also led to a sense of unease in India -- even more so when Trump, on social media, called India's economy "dead." Trump's recent statements reflect his frustration with the pace of trade talks with India, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal administration thinking. The Republican president has not been pursuing any strategic realignment with Pakistan, according to the official, but is instead trying to play hardball in negotiations. Trump doubled down on the pressure Monday with a fresh post on Truth Social, in which he accused India of buying "massive amounts" of oil from Russia and then "selling it on the Open Market for big profits." "They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA," he said. The messaging appears to have stung Modi's administration, which has been hard-selling negotiations with Trump's team over a trade deal by balancing between India's protectionist system while also opening up the country's market to more American goods. Many expected India to react strongly considering Modi's carefully crafted reputation of strength. Instead, the announcement prompted a rather careful response from India's commerce minister, Piyush Goyal, who said the two countries are working towards a "fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement." India's Foreign Ministry also played down suggestions of any strain. However, experts in New Delhi wonder. "Strenuous, uninterrupted and bipartisan efforts in both capitals over the past 25 years are being put at risk by not just the tariffs but by fast and loose statements and social media posts," said Malik, who now heads the India chapter of The Asia Group, a U.S. advisory firm . Malik also said the trade deal the Indian side has offered to the U.S. is the "most expansive in this country's history," referring to reports that India was willing to open up to some American agricultural products. That is a politically sensitive issue for Modi, who faced a yearlong farmers' protest a few years ago. Trump appears to be tilting towards Pakistan The unraveling may have gained momentum over tariffs, but the tensions have been palpable for a while. Much of it has to do with Trump growing closer to Pakistan, India's nuclear rival in the neighborhood. In May, India and Pakistan traded a series of military strikes over a gun massacre in disputed Kashmir that New Delhi blamed Islamabad for. Pakistan denied the accusations. The four-day conflict made the possibility of a nuclear conflagration between the two sides seem real and the fighting only stopped when global powers intervened. But it was Trump's claims of mediation and an offer to work to provide a "solution" regarding the dispute over Kashmir that made Modi's administration uneasy. Since then, Trump has repeated nearly two dozen times that he brokered peace between India and Pakistan. For Modi, that is a risky -- even nervy -- territory. Domestically, he has positioned himself as a leader who is tough on Pakistan. Internationally, he has made huge diplomatic efforts to isolate the country. So Trump's claims cut a deep wound, prompting a sense in India that the U.S. may no longer be its strategic partner. India insists that Kashmir is India's internal issue and had opposed any third-party intervention. Last week Modi appeared to dismiss Trump's claims after India's Opposition began demanding answers from him. Modi said that "no country in the world stopped" the fighting between India and Pakistan, but he did not name Trump. Trump has also appeared to be warming up to Pakistan, even praising its counterterrorism efforts. Hours after levying tariffs on India, Trump announced a "massive" oil exploration deal with Pakistan, saying that some day, India might have to buy oil from Islamabad. Earlier, he also hosted one of Pakistan's top military officials at a private lunch. Sreeram Sundar Chaulia, an expert at New Delhi's Jindal School of International Affairs, said Trump's sudden admiration for Pakistan as a great partner in counterterrorism has "definitely soured" the mood in India. Chaulia said "the best-case scenario is that this is just a passing Trump whim," but he also warned that "if financial and energy deals are indeed being struck between the U.S. and Pakistan, it will dent the U.S.-India strategic partnership and lead to loss of confidence in the U.S. in Indian eyes." India's oil purchases from Russia are an irritant The strain in relations has also to do with oil. India had faced strong pressure from the Biden administration to cut back its oil purchases from Moscow during the early months of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Instead, India bought more, making it the second-biggest buyer of Russian oil after China. That pressure sputtered over time and the U.S. focused more on building strategic ties with India, which is seen as a bulwark against a rising China. Trump's threat to penalize India over oil, however, brought back those issues. On Sunday, the Trump administration made its frustrations over ties between India and Russia ever more public. Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House, accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, saying it was "not acceptable." Some experts, though, suspect Trump's remarks are mere pressure tactics. "Given the wild fluctuations in Trump's policies," Chaulia said, "it may return to high fives and hugs again."
Nikkei Asia
11 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
US to deploy new, shorter-range missile system for Japan drill
The Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) is displayed at Marine Day at Quantico, Virginia on June 5. The anti-ship missle launcher is expected to be deployed to Japan for a drill next month. (U.S. Marine Corps photo) KEN MORIYASU WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Marine Corps is planning to field a high-precision -- but less controversial -- anti-ship missile launcher to Okinawa next month as part of a drill, a move experts see as signaling a U.S. intent to avoid overly antagonizing Beijing.
Asahi Shimbun
a day ago
- Asahi Shimbun
Documents show secret pact if U.S. troops sent to Korea conflict
A copy of a cable sent in November 1959 regarding the revision of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty (Provided by Takashi Nobuo) Declassified U.S. documents show that Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi agreed in the late 1950s to allow the United States to deploy its forces based in Japan in the event of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula without consulting Tokyo. The documents were U.S. diplomatic cables sent between 1958 and 1960 regarding negotiations for the revision of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty between Foreign Minister Aiichiro Fujiyama and U.S. Ambassador to Japan Douglas MacArthur II. After becoming prime minister in 1957, Kishi called for a more equal relationship with the United States and in revising the security treaty he wanted a prior consultation before U.S. troops based in Japan that could be deployed for missions other than the defense of Japan. But in July 1959, MacArthur made it clear that the United States could not have a prior consultation with Japan if troops had to be sent immediately in support of U.N. troops if the Korean War resumed. Kishi faced a dilemma because if Washington was allowed to send troops to the Korean Peninsula without prior notification, it would demonstrate that the two nations were far from the equal status that Kishi argued for. The Asahi Shimbun was shown copies of the documents found by Takashi Shinobu, a professor emeritus at Nihon University in Tokyo and an expert on the history of Japan-U.S. diplomacy, at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. A document from August 1959 had Fujiyama explaining that he "had very carefully considered' the matter with Kishi. Fujiyama proposed that a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula be made the sole exception to the prior consultation system under the revised security treaty. Fujiyama pointed out that the notification system would be the most important characteristic that showed the revised security treaty placed the two nations on a more equal footing. But as negotiations were continuing between Fujiyama and MacArthur, protests broke out in Japan by those who opposed a revision of the security treaty on the grounds it would drag Japan into an American war. The documents show that in November 1959, Kishi met with MacArthur and expressed fear that the treaty itself would be threatened and his own administration would fall if the issue was handled in the wrong manner. Kishi had Fujiyama propose an agreement between the two sides on the Korean Peninsula deployment issue in the form of confidential minutes for the first meeting of the security consultative body under the revised security treaty. Fujiyama and MacArthur reached such an agreement prior to the January 1960 visit by Kishi to the United States to sign the revised security treaty. The existence of the secret pact came to light after the then Democratic Party of Japan took control of the government in 2009. A panel of experts determined the agreement on no prior consultation for the deploying of U.S. troops to the Korean Peninsula was the only secret pact clearly agreed to by the two sides. But although a draft of that pact was uncovered, few documents related to the negotiations that led to that agreement were found in the Foreign Ministry archives. Nobuo said the lack of documents on the Japanese side was a reflection of the inward-looking stance of Japanese diplomacy that relied on secret pacts to protect the government of that time.
